|
|
|
|
|
4rum
|
Joined: 5/10/2008
Msg: 26 | |
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:06:58 AM | My family are from Tahiti. Google Gauguin. Not all artists are honourable. To me, Gauguin is a paedophile and cheated on his wife. Paedophile sounds more worse than cheater doesn't it? Why? Because a child was used.
Arty impressions appeal to arty/artsy people. The majority see it for what it is, naked kiddie pics.
As parents, it's our duty to protect our children and give them a decent base of character. An artists impression won't do that. Giving them mixed messages at a vulnerable age, early adolescence, is playing with fire and will come back to kick us in the butt, at our child's expense.
At 13, no one would've dared to ask me to pose naked. Why? My family know this isn't appropriate for an adult to ask. Oh, did I mention I have a big daddy and bigger brothers.
At 13, you wouldn't dare ask my son to pose naked either. Why? I'd kick your arse from here to tomorrow that's why. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:40:18 AM | PS. Goddess, In case I am misinterpreted, I don't mean that ^^ as anything directed against you, I was merely prompted by your words to wonder what the artist might have been trying to evoke in his audience as far as challenging our thoughts. Cos that's the thing with artists, they are not purely focussed on the visual characteristics of their work, but also on what it makes us feel and think. They usually wish to inspire reaction. I am sure to Bill Henson, these are not dirty pics. And he's certainly got people exploring their own thoughts on where the line between art and porn lies, so no doubt is happy to have caused a reaction with his work
to naamah i understand what you mean by an artist creating a peice of art to provoke ones thoughts and feelings when appreciating and studying their works of art , however is it necessary or even morally right to use a 13 yo's naked body to provoke ones thoughts ,,,,,,,, I think not , surely there are other mediums of art to get ones point accross when it comes to the "vulnerability of pre teens" . all that it has achieved with me in reguards to my thoughts is the feelings of disgust and a new found lack of respect towards the art world | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:50:17 AM | NO it is NOT ART, it is just crap, and I agree the child could have been clthed.. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:01:41 AM | Faux Pa I'd be glad to provide a link , however i think WG beat me to it
You also mentioned other forms of exploitation of children ie beauty pagents etc yes yes yes point taken however these children are CLOTHED !!!!!!!! | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 30 | |
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:01:43 AM |
They are instant images of a child, not a muse, not an artistsic interpretation.
I think that's the bit that I am struggling with too...the fact that it's photographs. Not quite separated enough from the models themselves to make me feel entirely comfortable. It's hard to get past the fact that it's a direct representation of a nude young girl... but some art is meant to make us uncomfortable, and I do consider photography to be art. The interpretation comes in with lighting and angles and composition and wanting to capture something significant. I'm no artist and I don't have the capacity to explain it properly, but I get that it's not the same mindset as when we try to get a good shot at the family BBQ.
I was surprised to read DimeaDozen's impression of the pics. WG's too. The pics I have looked at strike me as a bit dark and gloomy, and one of them seems sort of sad in mood...yeah there are nude girls, but I just don't see them as sexually provocative. Maybe I looked at the wrong pics? Eeek...maybe I am desensitised by real porn?
WG are the photographs censored on the net? That's weird. Although yeah, we wouldn't want the net cluttered up with nude photographs.
I know some people here won't accept that as valid at all, but I have heard a bit about this from the other perspective, that of other artists. People involved in the art world are actually pretty disgusted...but for the opposite reason. They are disgusted that people would stoop so low as to choose to see something dirty in these photographs to the point of police intervention (which later backed down). I guess art is their primary perspective, so the thought of it being seen as on the same level as porn caused a bit of a wtf type reaction. The temporary police intervention was seen as reminiscent of a good old fashioned book burning. Although artists like to inspire reaction and thought, this time the backlash was greater than anyone expected. I anticipate someone calling their reaction hopelessly naive...but I assure you, it's genuine. Their focus is entirely different. Maybe they are the weird ones, maybe we are.
Isn't it amazing how extreme the differences in perception on this subject are.
Izzy, your question about whether it's moral to use a naked 13 year old to inspire reaction is a valid one. Some here have a clear answer in their mind...me, I am still in two minds. There was no force or trickery involved in it, and the rest is tied up in our reactions to nudity, sexuality, art, porn, appropriateness, and where the line is on each of these. Great thread by the way. Nice to see some real discussion going on around here. <img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0> | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:18:34 AM |
The difference ultimately lies in the motivation...and there is a huge difference between the motivations of an artist and a child pornographer...
In addition to motivation, I think that another important factor that should be considered is the 'consequences' of anything that any person does, regardless of whether we're talking about art or pornography. If a piece of art is likely to result in a significant increase in sexual crimes then it would be justifiable for the authorities to ban it - without a doubt. Artists don't exist in a vacuum - their creations of art can lead to undesirable consequences just like the creations of pornographers.
The biggest problem I have with artists is their inability to show self-restraint - some artists tend to think that anything goes - as long as it advances their careers. Don't think for one minute that artists are not at least partially motivated by profit in their endeavours - they don't create art because of altruistic reasons - they create it because they expect somebody to buy it at some point in time.
I believe that there should be artistic freedom, but by no means should that freedom be absolute. As important as freedom of speech is, there are still statutory limitations placed on it, so why should art be treated any differently? After all, art is merely a form of expression, just like speech is. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:40:45 AM | It would be handy if we could all see the same pics and then know we're talking about the same thing.
I tried Whitegold's links and saw the one with a teenager naked but not looking particularly sexual (with the commentary) and the other link didn't work for me.
The photos that I saw on 4 corners seemed more suggestive.
Its odd really that the website with the commentary on whether pics of naked teenagers are necessarily porn, should use a relatively non sexual photo to make their point. Maybe they have a vested interest? | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:43:23 AM | Whitegold, thanks for the links. I'd confirm the pic I see as being in question is the first one.
I'm looking at the uncensored version but I'm not really sure if it's OK to post a link to that one, so I won't. Anyone who wants it can PM me, I guess.
But can I pick up on a couple of points here.
I do also think it's art. But does that excuse it necessarily? If it was more explicit, more sexual... it would still be art.
My point here is to ask weather it needs to somehow be excused.
Next point is to ask if it is somehow explicit just as it is? . . let alone more explicit.
Is it actually even sexual.
I think my answer to all those is 'no'.
Now, does that automatically make it art?
I don't know and I'm not convinced it really matters at the end of the day. I'm not sure I feel qualified to make the judgement, but I don't think it's pornographic, that's for sure.
Maybe it's me, but while I can see a naked girl just like everyone else, I don't think the predominant features are of a sexual nature. I don't think it displays much in the way of sexuality at all, actually. She's looking down, the image is shrouded in darkness with lighting from behind and I think it's rather haunting more than anything else. It's difficult to describe in words alone, but it is a rather beautiful image.
IzzyB,
Yep, the children in those pageants are clothed . . and exploited.
So is Bill Henson's girl more exploited 'cos she isn't wearing any clothes? She's certainly not as young as those little ones and I'd argue that nakedness doesn't automatically equate to exploitation.
At what age is exploitation OK where both clothing and sexualisation are included?
At what age is nudity OK where no sexualisation takes place?
What about the snaps from that naturist holiday? There's certainly no art in those and they may well be shown around to non-naturists, but I'd concede, probably not in a gallery for all to see.
Are we so mentally fixated on the nakedness and anything that might . . just might be attached to it by someone, that we fail see any artistic merit in this? . . I mean . . is there absolutely none at all?
OK . . I guess it's just me, then.  | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:52:39 AM | Re message 16....before getting into your quote...yes I know it wasn't directed against me. ..debates are about getting our points and opinions through by using the said opinions otherwise what’s the point of debate?
whether it's porn or art is in the eyes of the viewer. So yes, normal people will look at a nude baby and just see a nude baby without thinking it's sexual. But perhaps the challenge the artist poses to us all, is whether we, as normal people, we can look at a pic of a nude early teen, and just see a nude early teen without thinking it's sexual
Okay agree its the eye of the viewer.... so if am normal I look at babies nude photo and it all depends where the nudity begins and ends and my reaction would be "how cute" and a paedophile looks at it and well we don't want to know his/her thoughts.
as the later post (22) has covered, same goes with photographs of animals.
One thing though...we as society and globally, are trying to remove those attractions from the paedophilias......why promote???...this Bill Henson work of art is actually promoting it.
Until tonight I never heard of this Artists......so I did a bit of a search on his work tonight...and thanks to poster 22 I saw some of the works (the first link didn’t show any pics) .... what gets me is; he also puts make up on some of the child models..... such as bright red lipstick..........I've always heard red lipstick was actually sexy...yes???
Anyway regardless how we look at it and how normal majority of the populations motives are, WE all actually know they are people with other motives around too....so why expose children to the evil we know exists???????
Also as much as we have whatever view we also know what is sexual....we know. Don't we??????
re message 19
Let's put it another way. A beautiful (adult) model may be willing to be painted au natural by Vincent Van Gough, but not if painted by me.
And a very smart girl she would be too, 'cos I couldn't paint to save myself.
you might find that a beautiful adult model desperate for money wouldn't even give a hoot being painted by you, as long you have the money to attempt to paint...Okay we know defiantly Ell Macpherson won’t come to you.
now 15 and I'm wracking my brain to figure out what it might be like had the question really been asked then. I guess I don't know and can only say with any certainty that if anyone were to do the photography, Bill Henson would be an OK one.
I believe that's the only reason those parents dedicated their children to Bill Henson too, they were lured by his fame so they may have a piece of it by sacrificing their own children for the sake of fame. But to me that's not fair of them. Since we actually and honestly don't know the inner motives of Mr Henson because as previously was said it's how WE view.
Although I can't see how he views but the few of his work I saw I guessed his view is sexual just the way he captured those photos and specially the use of makeup...after all we all know of what is and what isn’t…
if instead of photography the exact some message/meaning/depiction was painted on canvas no one would give a rats as$... but because there is a direct link to a real person, that there in lies the problem.
Yes very good point. Painting no matter how realistic it is, still takes many aspects of realism out of the canvas and it becomes more lifeless and some how distant but photographs and moving pictures brings the real person closer to the viewer.
What about baby competitions . . is that exploitation?
What about those grotesque (to me anyway) junior fashion shows . . is that exploitation?
What about naturist holidays . . is that exploitation?
yes baby competitions and junior fashion shows they both done for the parents to feel proud so they use their children ….(I thought about it few times but glad it didn’t happen)
naturist holidays…wow …not sure it all depends…I suppose they are few of them around I don’t know ….I definitely won’t go on one and won’t let my child to go on one either no matter what the price be…
I don't know if it's possible to make that choice at 13
maybe it’s possible, we all live differently and have been taught differently. But a child who is brought up in a certain way with a certain ethic and values will know that the best. So if for example a child has been sexually abused from a very early age and knows no better thinks that’s the way life is. Same goes with any other form of abuse or treatment children go through. Same goes with nudity…
BUT one major thing we forget to realise…. children are so flexible, forgiving and have such short memory for hating people that they think they care for them. Probably that’s why it’s easier to hurt and abuse a child.
I'm not sure I feel qualified to make the judgement, but I don't think it's pornographic, that's for sure.
not qualified as an artist???? Art is done for the public not for the artists….you are very capable and should give yourself the right to be judgemental on a piece of art.
But what in this case you have more right to judge than a vase or light is the fact another human being under age and exposed has been used.
Truly you have all the right to judge…..because people like all of us here could make things happen.
What a great thread/topic thank you Op | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 35 | |
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 9:34:26 AM |
Are we so mentally fixated on the nakedness and anything that might . . just might be attached to it by someone, that we fail see any artistic merit in this? . . I mean . . is there absolutely none at all? OK . . I guess it's just me, then.
Nah it's not just you. I am a little from column A and a little from column B about it all. I think it's art, but it makes me squirm all the same.
If a piece of art is likely to result in a significant increase in sexual crimes then it would be justifiable for the authorities to ban it - without a doubt. Artists don't exist in a vacuum - their creations of art can lead to undesirable consequences just like the creations of pornographers.
Would a photograph of a naked teen really inspire a significant increase in sexual crime though? I thought sex crimes were motivated by a need to assert power rather than as a result of sexual stimulation as such. And I dunno ...should they ban music that contains lyrics that address violence or promiscuity? ...books that deal with issues from a controversial viewpoint?...if those things might cause undesirable consequences. Maybe they already do, I have no idea.
I believe that there should be artistic freedom, but by no means should that freedom be absolute. As important as freedom of speech is, there are still statutory limitations placed on it, so why should art be treated any differently? After all, art is merely a form of expression, just like speech is.
Very well said, and I agree that there can't be no boundaries.
Oh, and just on this...
Don't think for one minute that artists are not at least partially motivated by profit in their endeavours - they don't create art because of altruistic reasons - they create it because they expect somebody to buy it at some point in time. ...I really can't agree with that. Some of you might already have seen me say elsewhere that my brother is an artist (yes, he's one of them ) and back when he was selling nothing, broke, and sponging off me...which he was for several years...he had the occasional offer of money if he would paint a particular thing a person wanted painted. He always said no. He didn't want to paint other people's ideas and only wanted to paint what he wanted to paint, whether it sold or not...and it didn't very often. These days I can moreso understand his refusal because he is doing so well that he can afford to be a diva about it, but the fact that he did it when he was broke...some artists are definitely motivated by the creation of art, not moolah. It's a mindset that is quite powerful, and that over the years I have found hard to fathom at times. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:05:31 AM | Is it really art? The pictures I've seen definitely have artistic merit.
I see the pictures as being somewhat sexual though not in a provocative way, I see more of an emerging sexuality in the pictures. To me art has to evoke an emotional response and looking at the pictures I felt a definite feeling of sadness, which troubled me as the emergence of sexuality should also be a joyous time as well.
As far as being appropriate, they are pictures of naked 13 year olds and they are now plastered all over the internet so that bothers me. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 10:57:19 AM |
Okay we know defiantly Ell Macpherson won’t come to you.
Damn . . I was sorta counting on her, too.
I believe that's the only reason those parents dedicated their children to Bill Henson too . .
Huh . . 'dedicated their children to Bill Henson'? What does that actually mean?
. . they were lured by his fame so they may have a piece of it by sacrificing their own children for the sake of fame.
Lured? That's a rather negative distortion of my words if I may say so.
To clarify, I was in fact saying that if anyone were to do the photography, I'd feel reassured by his excellent reputation as well as his credentials. And no one is being 'sacrificed' here nor is anyone looking to somehow ride on the coat tails of anyone else.
. . But to me that's not fair of them.
OK, that's cool.
. . Since we actually and honestly don't know the inner motives of Mr Henson because as previously was said it's how WE view.
Agreed . . we don't know his motivations and we can only rely on said reputation and credentials. To say anything other than that would probably invite a defamation suit.
Although I can't see how he views but the few of his work I saw I guessed his view is sexual just the way he captured those photos and specially the use of makeup...after all we all know of what is and what isn’t…
Yep, you guessed. Guesses are OK . . I guess.
I guess we could also guess about the make up used in those junior beauty pageants . . I guess.
My guess is that you may not actually see what the artist sees . . and that's also OK.
I don't know if it's possible to make that choice at 13
maybe it’s possible, we all live differently and have been taught differently. But a child who is brought up in a certain way with a certain ethic and values will know that the best. So if for example a child has been sexually abused from a very early age and knows no better thinks that’s the way life is. Same goes with any other form of abuse or treatment children go through. Same goes with nudity…
BUT one major thing we forget to realise…. children are so flexible, forgiving and have such short memory for hating people that they think they care for them. Probably that’s why it’s easier to hurt and abuse a child.
This paragraph puzzles me so I've included my own words in order that the context is not lost.
I deliberately use the word 'puzzles' because I wouldn't want to pre-empt your response in light of your other words above.
Could you clarify your meaning here, please. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 11:04:44 AM |
Its odd really that the website with the commentary on whether pics of naked teenagers are necessarily porn, should use a relatively non sexual photo to make their point. Maybe they have a vested interest?
It's the only pic in broad circulation. In fact, I found the exact same picture on the Age website. Not linked anywhere but found through google images. It's an art website, they don't really have a vested interest, I think it's the "signature photo" of the exhibition.
What about baby competitions . . is that exploitation?
What about those grotesque (to me anyway) junior fashion shows . . is that exploitation?
What about naturist holidays . . is that exploitation?
Yes, yes, no.
Opinion only, of course.
I think "exploitation" is not really the point. Even if they were clothed and their sexuality was just suggested, it would still be exploitation, but totally alright. I mean, an adult model is really similarly exploited, really. They may make a more informed decision about it, but that's not really the point. No, the point is not that it's exploitation. The point is that it's a nude photo of a 13 year old girl.
Faux Pa raises good points as usual. So I'll respond individually to his statements.
My point here is to ask weather it needs to somehow be excused.
Yes and no. Not to me. To me I'm not that concerned whether it's art or not. I didn't send the jackbooted federalis in. (I know they weren't federal police, I just like the word.) But I read someone who said about this issue that "when you push the boundaries, sometimes the boundaries push back".
Personally I see no need to distinguish between art and porn. Display porn at the Louvre as far as I'm concerned. But when you touch on a subject that is so iffy you have to expect that some in our society will object. The question is whether or not those people have a right to object. In my opinion they do. That's the "excusing" I'm referring to.
Next point is to ask if it is somehow explicit just as it is? . . let alone more explicit.
Well, explicit is a vague term. It's a bit hard to quantify the explicitity of it. But what if the girls were sitting down with their legs open? Innocently. Ie, you could see more. How explicit is it now? Fairly mild, really. You can see nipples, but that's about all. That's not really relevant, though.
Is it actually even sexual.
This really is the key question and it's extremely subjective. I personally feel it is. Like I said earlier that may reflect something on me, but girls at that age are on the threshold of sexuality. Definitively. Whether you think they've begun to step across or not is very subjective. In fact, the nascence and ambiguity of their sexuality is (I believe) a big part of the point of the art.
I think my answer to all those is 'no'.
There we can happily disagree, my fine friend!
he also puts make up on some of the child models..... such as bright red lipstick..........I've always heard red lipstick was actually sexy...yes???
Indeed! All makeup is sexual. Like it or not. It simulates sexual arousal, or at the very least attraction. Flushed cheeks, darkened and wide eyes, red lips... signals of sexual interest. In fact, I believe lipstick specifically was originally worn by Egyptian prostitutes to indicate their willingness to perform fellatio. A factoid that will haunt you the next time you see a 10 year old put on make-up to "look pretty". | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:27:57 PM | For me the picture has captured and holds for perpetuity the embryonic and yet still innocent point as metamorphose takes hold of a pubescent girl’s body transforming her into an adult woman. Sigh.....this is a beautiful happening of Mother Nature at work on a grand scale on the canvas of all mankind. I see it as genderless and should be praised and celebrated by the parents whom have achieved such a wonderful rhapsody in the conception and nurturing of a human being. A remarkable process that cannot be duplicated by any other means, its modus operandi is vast and unfathomable.
This is the message that I see in the “art” context, it is my interpretation of the artists work.
On a personal level, I think the young girl will cherish the photo now and even more so in the later stages of her life when she will look back in time and reminisce on what was, evoking a variety of haunting ruminations. That could be a good or a bitter finale but that’s what life is all about, only the all knowing “time” can tell.
Can it be construed as porn? Yes, some of either gender can and will view it in a sexual context.
Will they act on those feelings in refutation of societies morals? Difficult to answer, some will, some won’t, depends on the ethics of the individual on his/her mentality.
But is it harmful, could it be the impetus needed for someone to act in the physical sense, on their sexual desires? Again, hard to predict precisely, I would hope not and that sufficient prohibiting deterrents to curtail and thwart such behaviours are in place in our society.
Given that there is doubt on whether the exhibition of such artwork could be the causation of undesirable, anti-social behaviour shouldn’t it then be censored? No, an uncompromising adamant no. Our society is a free one based on non violent democratic principles. Those freedoms are controlled by laws set in our society’s moral fortitude of right and wrong, which is continually changing as we become more enlightened in our outlook as a whole. If we were to move down the path of censorship of images many other undesirable avenues would open up to frustrate our further advancements as a peaceful enlightened society. Consider for one moment that if we could view the images locked in the mind of a psychologically scarred returned soldier, if we could see the horrors that he has had to endure and perform, would we so easily have dispatched him into battle? | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 4:25:56 PM | Pornography, whether in a written or visual sense, is anything that captures a humans behaviour and evokes a sudden and strong response (of any kind, not simply sexual).
All human photography and quite a bit of art could be viewed as pornographic. A shot of a child sitting abandoned and tearful in a doorway, may evoke in some a longing to rescue, or recall their own abandonment, strongly and suddenly. A guy photographed mid strike in a boxing match, with his saliva and teeth leaving his mouth, could also evoke a strong recoil reaction. The spiked reaction to the depicted behaviour is what determines whether its pornographic for each person.
Pornographic material can be pleasantly stimulating, and the same material can also be unpleasant for others. That's the nature of it. Think: Boys and their stick books, and a girls horror at discovering them. (Sorry to generalise, but was just going for possibly a more common scenario...)
I consider the pic to be art. I see the pornographic aspect to it, but I don't consider it a negative aspect. A person who is willing to bare all, has found a certain liberation within themselves.... an acceptance of self that many spend their whole lives struggling with. It evoked in me a feeling of generational pride I guess, (upon viewing it with knowledge of her age) as over the years so many young girls have grown into women who continue to struggle with their body image. My initial response was strong. "This kid trusts in her own beauty!" Thats a rare and precious thing. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:33:52 PM | While I agree with BA there is still a huge part of me that says she is just too young.
Too be happy with our bodies (or ashamed) is taught to us at a very young age, but at what age should we be free to make our own decisions? Personally I like how the nudist handle it, everybody all ages go around nude but don't attempt to photograph their children (you perverts)
In this particular case the girl just looked too young to protect herself so therefore I think her parents should have protected her better. (I have only seen the one picture from the news though) | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:03:01 PM | To fellow posters that have asked for links about the photos , I apologize for not providing such links , To be honest I dont feel comfortable providing them to you , I have my reasoning behind my decision, However i am sure they are easily found via the net if fellow posters feel they need to view them to back up ones claims or opinions,
I would also like to ad that while i appreciate everyones opinions and again thank everyone for joining in , in this subject matter I am surprised by some comments and opinions , It really does sadden me that a we as a society are suppose to protect children from any form of abuse and exploitaton from adults , but yet how can we do this when we as a society will allow children to be exploited in such a way "for arts sake" It is illegal to portray children under the age of 18 in a sexual manner that is why the police were brought in and unfortunately the powers that be agreed that it was art even if the main consensus was the fact that the photos crossed the line.
Are we as a society so desensitised by the naked body that we fail to see what is morally right and wrong ??? My main concern is , that the photo in question has been accepted as art , what next does that give permission for the artist to up the anti for shock value the next time around , is it going to lead the way for other artist's to "go one better " when will it stop ?
I have to admit that i am not that familiar with the artist in questions work , I only stumbled upon all this when watching an ABC programme the other night Insite i believe it was , thats where i saw the photo , and i have to say i felt very uncomfortable when i saw it , the pit of my stomach sick , what made it even worse was the fact that the director of brave hearts was there ( im sorry but her name has completely gone out of my head) the very person that fights for the protection and rights of children was brutalised by artist , art gallery owners and the like , it upsets me that there are so many people in society are ok with the fact that a young child can be portrayed in such a manner and not even blink an eye as a parent I would never allow my child to be photographed in such a way , and I believe that the parents of the child should be questioned on their choice to allow it for their daughter , someone call DoCS !!!!!!
I have worked with children that have been abused/exploited and let me just say they tend to be and empty shell of their former selves when they have been subjected to abuse , what message are we sending children if we say its ok ?
ok well thats my little rant and again thankyou to all that have made a contibution to my post
 | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/28/2008 8:01:27 PM | any nudity of a child in the public world to me is wrong regardless of the reason or the cause......There are too many things today that take away facets of kids lives as kids.....Let our kids be kids and take away the crap and other stuff that tries to turn them into adults way too early.....
and for the record my personal opinion is that any person thats wants to photograph naked children in my book should be put on their knees and executed.
cheerz all be safe and be well | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:14:27 AM | i wasnt sure what my opinion would be, i read through a few posts and came to a conclusion....
i am an artist,, and i understand very much so that art is a creative piece of work, and is going to be viewed differently through different eyes, thats one of the things that makes art so wonderful. so i can appreciate the artistic purpose of hensen's picture.
that aside,
we have rules in place to protect our children/teenagers, such as, they cant become catwalk models etc till they are sixteen, cant enter idol or such till sixteen, cant start to learn to drive till least sixteen, cant legally have sex till, drink till, smoke till.... etc etc etc.
art or otherwise, i think a child should not be photographed nude, (there is a difference between say miley cyrus vanity fair nudish pic to full nude)... i havent seen the photo to fully comment...
but i guess my feeling is.. what does a 13 year old really know about these things.. are they comfortably making an informed decision knowing all the possible consequences from such an action? and understand them? i dont think so..
and that is why i disagree...
society is becoming very rule driven lately i have noticed, cant go to different pubs after 2am, cant vote till 18, cant smack ur child, cant smoke in pubs anymore.. cant do this.. cant do that.. i find it ironic considering we are not a communist country, but at the end of the day, a rule that protects a child, can not be a bad thing. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:05:12 AM |
Don't think for one minute that artists are not at least partially motivated by profit in their endeavours - they don't create art because of altruistic reasons - they create it because they expect somebody to buy it at some point in time.
...I really can't agree with that. Some of you might already have seen me say elsewhere that my brother is an artist (yes, he's one of them ) and back when he was selling nothing, broke, and sponging off me...which he was for several years...he had the occasional offer of money if he would paint a particular thing a person wanted painted. He always said no. He didn't want to paint other people's ideas and only wanted to paint what he wanted to paint, whether it sold or not...and it didn't very often. These days I can moreso understand his refusal because he is doing so well that he can afford to be a diva
about it, but the fact that he did it when he was broke...some artists are definitely motivated by the creation of art, not moolah. It's a mindset that is quite powerful, and that over the years I have found hard to fathom at times.
What? Somebody actually disagreed with me? No way! LOL!
I don't know what goes on in the minds of people (including artists) so I can't make any judgements about somebody I haven't even met. But think about this extreme example: If you were out of the picture and your brother was without an income, without a place to live and had nothing decent to eat then how many nanoseconds would it take him to
accept an offer of let's say $10,000 by some rich dude (who places a high value on his art) who wanted your brother to paint him? Surely you don't think that artists create art exclusively because they want somebody to enjoy their work? I understand that there are all kinds of people who are motivated by all kinds of things other than money. But
I think that even those people would succumb to the offer of cash if they absolutely had to. If your brother gives you one of his paintings and finds out that you've sold it for let's say a few million dollars, do you think that he would say to you 'Hey sis, good for you. By the way, keep the cash. I don't want even a cent of it'?
Here's another extreme example: A pedophile uses a screen capture program to save a frame from a child porn film. He then uses a program such as IrfanView to open the file and uses the following commands: 'Image' > 'Effects' > 'Oil Paint' and ends up with something that resembles a work of art. As far as the law is concerned, these simple steps has turned this 'nice chap' from doing something illegal into doing something that can be displayed in an art gallery and possibly get all kinds of ridiculous praise from his fellow artists. Sadly, we live in a society where we have laws with stupid loopholes that makes it easy for those with a criminal intent to work around those same laws just by using a bit of technology.
Yes, they ARE two extreme examples, but sometimes extreme examples have to be used in order to demonstrate a point that cannot be made in any other way. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/29/2008 9:23:36 AM | do fellow posters think this is pornograpy disguised as art ?
No, I don't think that was Hensons intention or motive at all.
But I think these images push the boundaries and I can understand why people would be offended.
I found them some what disturbing but for my own personal reasons... and like a mirror they showed my own true take on the nudity, sexuality and adolesence etc.
For me thats true art.. it allows, envokes, at times pushes me to see a perspective of self I might other wise not have been consious of...
I can't judge to BillHenson the 'law' is responsible for that. They have viewed the photos, investigated all parties concerned and on 6 June 2008 it was reported that police will not prosecute Bill Henson over his photographs of naked teenagers, after they were declared "mild and justified" and given a PG rating.
Personally I find the photos that young teens 12/13 yr olds are permitted to post on such site as Myspace/ Bebo etc ,MUCH more disturbing... I doubt too many paedophiliacs were intending to go and view Hensons exhibition...[they will now of course, irony]...but most of them were at home on the net attempting to befriend every day children... we wouldn't let our kids to go trotting around the globe with out supervision....yet soooo many parents use the web as a babysitter/entertainer etc with out monitoring their kids...that's scarier than anything MistaHenson did.
Just my opinion......please don't hurt me
| |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 47 | |
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 6/30/2008 4:47:19 AM |
If you were out of the picture and your brother was without an income, without a place to live and had nothing decent to eat then how many nanoseconds would it take him to accept an offer of let's say $10,000 by some rich dude (who places a high value on his art) who wanted your brother to paint him?
He wouldn't have done it. He would rather have lived on the streets, or gone and gotten "a real job" than sold out on his principles with respect to his art. It's an untouchable in his mind. Anything else would be preferable to painting something he didn't feel inspired to paint, for money. Selling his art is a bonus, not a goal. And as a result of sticking to his principles, he is now selling them for about $10,000 each...on his terms.
If your brother gives you one of his paintings and finds out that you've sold it for let's say a few million dollars, do you think that he would say to you 'Hey sis, good for you. By the way, keep the cash. I don't want even a cent of it'?
Of course he wouldn't expect a cent of it. My house is full of his paintings, given as gifts when he had nothing else to give me...but I'd no more sell them than he'd paint something he didn't want to paint. Some things are worth more than money. | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 7/1/2008 7:41:55 AM | . . . No, the point is not that it's exploitation. The point is that it's a nude photo of a 13 year old girl.
OK, let's leave the exploitation aspect for the moment and look at the 'acceptability' of this pic.
Do we know if she gave consent?
Do we (without knowing her) accept that she may be sufficiently mature to consider consent?
Do we allow her the freedom to grant that consent?
Do we, as parents, give a blanket 'no' because we are guided by other age of consent laws?
Have we just then considered under age sex in the same light as art? (Don't answer this one . . it's a crappy construct but it looked good when I first typed it and I thought I'd just leave it in so you know how easily my mind embraces a tangent sometimes.)
My point here is that we, quite naturally, make some judgements on what we would do given the situation and that's perfectly natural. It's the part I've struggled with, anyway.
So, what if I painted a picture of how this pic may have come into being?
(Fiction)
We're an ageing hippy couple living on a small acreage semi-rural bushland setting where we came to settle about twenty years ago (think Nimbin, OK). We came here to follow that dream of getting back to nature and enjoy a simpler lifestyle. We've grown our children here and are indeed fortunate to have three like minded neighbouring families, with whom me we have become very close friends. As a result, we and our favourite neighbours have somewhat intertwined lives and have developed into a kind of rambling commune. Our children play together and the adults also socialise every day as if we were one large extended family.
Anyway, it was just last Sunday that Bill (neighbour) was mentioning that it was some time since we'd had some group photographs and he'd brought his new camera over so we could take some. Bill is a well known photographer / artist, by the way.
My daughter overheard our conversation and immediately piped up saying . . 'Uncle Bill, would you take one of me? . . I like the ones you had in that last exhibition. Bill said that she'd have to ask her father to make sure it was OK.
What many may not know is that in our little extended commune, nudity or partial nudity is quite common and natural . . and is in keeping with our lifestyle and philosophy . . . so of course, I said it was OK.
( / Fiction)
Plausible? | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 7/2/2008 5:46:24 AM | My 2 cents in, wrong, wrong, wrong, its abusing a child full stop.......she is a child till she is 18!!!!!
If I was to date a 18 yr old at 32 it would be wrong and taking advantage of her even if though its legal.
let them keep there innocence they only get it once......
As for the artist reputation the pope has a good reputation!!!! but he'll never get near my kids!!!!!!!
Its so wrong, that I would throw the whip my self to help make him aware!!!!!!!!!! strong views, fit for a strong crime!!!!
Rama | |
|
| Is it really art ?
Posted: 7/2/2008 6:54:41 AM | I havn't read all of the contributions or seen the pictures apart form on the television but will comment anyway!
Aparently it is not child pornography unless the pictures are specifically of genitals etc. - I was told this by Queensland Dept. of Child Safety. I feel it is a sexualised way of looking at a child so dissagree with it.
I have a 13 year old daughter - her body is that of a woman her thinking is that of a teen. I would murder anyone who exploited and abused her in such way. No I would not allow it and certainly want her to know that she does not have to 'strip off' for any form of gain.
I personally dont like images of naked children - I have the usual ones of my own children but they are family photos not for public show. I agree that it is each persons perception of the picture, the phtographer may believe that he/she is taking a photo for arts sake but once again each person uses that image in different ways.
Let kids be kids for as long as they can in this world of bare all for everyone. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
